Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

I'll do better than that, I'll provide links and names (handles), and you (and anyone else) can see what's been posted (including the full context). I encourage you to respond directly in those threads; however, should you chose to post here only, I'll be happy to copy/paste ...

On the CMB, check out Dark Matter Heats Up and read the relevant posts by "optiongeek" and "JeanTate".

I'll do better than that, I'll provide links and names (handles), and you (and anyone else) can see what's been posted (including the full context). I encourage you to respond directly in those threads; however, should you chose to post here only, I'll be happy to copy/paste ...

On the CMB, check out Dark Matter Heats Up and read the relevant posts by "optiongeek" and "JeanTate".

You may copy/paste from there to here, if you wish (entirely up to you).

Myself, I've already provided you with what you need to obtain what you said you wanted. If you choose to not proceed, that's OK too. However, I will not do the spade work for you; I am not your private/personal assistant.

Several lies about Mills deluded cosmology or markie's abysmal ignorance

Originally Posted by markie

RC, you continue to have a remarkable way of misrepresenting what Mills is saying. ....

Several lies about Mills deluded cosmology. Or markie's abysmal ignorance of GR and cosmology?

Anyone who has learned about GR and cosmology can understand how deluded and ignorant Mills is about GR and cosmology.

Mills has a delusion about GR where real massive objects produce curvature of spacetime not expansion.
This is standard, textbook GR. Spacetime outside of a massive body such as a star is curved by its mass. There is no expansion of spacetime outside a massive object.
Expansion of spacetime comes when we consider what happens inside a "massive body" such as a universe where there is no outside !

The other half of this Mills' delusion is the cosmology teaches that the expansion of the universe does not apply to gravitationally bound objects such people, planets, stars and galaxies. Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

Mils basically lies about the power spectrum of the CMB is (it is not the E and B mode polarization). A section about the power spectrum needs to be about the power spectrum!Cosmic microwave background

Mills is really ignorant about the BICEP2 results.
The BICEP2 results were dubious even when they were first released as a pre-print in 2013. There were several cosmologists that wrote about possible problems in the paper. The BICEP2 team updated the paper to address the concerns, e.g. emphasize the dependence on soon to come Planck measurements of emissions from dust. By early 2015, the Planck measurements showed that the BICEP2 results were explained by the dust emissions. A year later Mills ignores this and has a section mostly on the BICEP2 results !

Mills has the ignorant delusion that the CMB comes from stars and galaxies.

But then we have:Page 1525 (bottom): Mills' ignorant delusion that B-mode polarization is created because he writes insane fantasies about light spheres and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
This is gravitational lensing. Mills' fantasies cannot produce gravitational lensing when he has the insanity of no supporting physics or math.
B-mode polarization is not simply E-mode polarization shifted by pi/2 as Mills implies. The B-mode polarization of the CMB is polarization with handiness that can only be produced by gravitational effects (lensing or waves). B-modes are shifted by pi/2 with respect to E-modes but it is their handedness that is important.

Several lies about Mills deluded cosmology. Or markie's abysmal ignorance of GR and cosmology?

Anyone who has learned about GR and cosmology can understand how deluded and ignorant Mills is about GR and cosmology.[list][*]Mills has a delusion about GR where real massive objects produce curvature of spacetime not expansion.
This is standard, textbook GR. Spacetime outside of a massive body such as a star is curved by its mass. There is no expansion of spacetime outside a massive object.

Here Reality Check is making it seem that Mills believes that GR teaches that massive objects cause spacetime expansion.. No, Mills does not believe that. Spacetime expansion (upon matter to energy conversion) is original with Mills, not Einstein. So Mills believes in spacetime expansion which is caused, not by 'dark energy', but by matter to energy conversion, such as happens in suns. (Mills also believes in spacetime curvature as predicted by GR.) Note that matter to energy conversion as associated with (say) galaxies, expands space. Energy is released into an expanding space, diluting that very energy. Conversely, regions of space that do not release much energy do not expand that much. The end result is that the energy distribution over the universe trends to isotropic.

Mills has a delusion that the CMB (as measured by COBE in 1992!) is somehow emitted by stars and galaxies doing his "mass to energy conversion". He does not know that a "blackbody spectrum as obtained by COBE" cannot be emitted by stars which are not blackbodies!

Figure 32.3 on page 1496 is abysmal ignorance about an illustrative "star" converting mass to energy.

Insane gibberish follows. Then we get "the mass to energy conversion rate of the entire Universe" which Mills attributes above to stars (and thus galaxies) and explicit use of stars and galaxies: "calculated from the number of galaxies (400 billion) times the number of stars per galaxy". Galaxies generally have roughly flat spectra with some peaks.

Then Mills deludingly applies the Stefan-Boltzmann law for a black body to stars and galaxies which are not black bodies ! Generally stars are roughly black bodies but add stars with different temperatures together and you get very much not a black body spectrum.

Mills follows this stupidity with more insanity, e.g. an age of the universe of 10 billion years !
From "28. W. L. Freeman, et. al., Nature, 371, pp. 757-762, (1994).".
Mills is stupidly citing a 1994 paper about a ongoing field of research in a 2016 book.
Mills is lying about that paper which is Distance to the Virgo cluster galaxy M100 from Hubble Space Telescope observations of Cepheids, not a calculation of the age of the universe.
The paper derives an outdated value for H0 = 80 ± 17 km s−1 Mpc−1. By 2005, this had been improved from Hubble data to 72±8. The Hubble constant gives the Hubble time which is a rough estimate of the age of the universe. By 2015, we had the WMAP and Planck results of 13.8 billion years.

Here Reality Check is making it seem that Mills believes that GR teaches that massive objects cause spacetime expansion.. ....

markie makes Mills insanely deluded in his book when Mills in his book explicitly states the massive objects (an illustrative "star") causes spacetime expansion.

GR does not teach that. GR teaches that an illustrative "star" will curve spacetime. markie is turning Mills from abysmally ignorant to insanely deluded. But this seems not the case. Mills is pathetically trying to replace General Relativity. For example: Page 1494: Mills has the delusion of "pair production equations" that unify "unify de Broglie’s Equation, Planck’s Equation, Maxwell’s Equations, Newton’s Equations, and Special and General Relativity". The minimum requirement for this in a sane world is to duplicate GR in the appropriate limits. That means that the prediction of GR from stars have to be duplicated. GR states that stars curve spacetime, not expand it.

But I will follow markie's lead: Mills has his own personal, insane delusion that massive objects such as stars cause expansion of spacetime by conversion of mass to energy.
Insanely deluded because E=mc2 tells us that the energy is still equivalent to the mass and thus spacetime has not changed.
Insanely deluded because the Earth has been in orbit around the Sun for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Sun has been in orbit in the Galaxy for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Milky Way has been in the Local Group for billions of years (13?)while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because all Mills has is own personal fantasy with no physics or math or empirical evidence.

The other half of this bit of Mills stupidity is the cosmology teaches that the expansion of the universe does not apply to gravitationally bound objects such people, planets, stars and galaxies.

For someone you've never communicated with or had contact with the company you seem to have a lot of what otherwise would seem to be privileged information from a secretive and guarded man.

Originally Posted by markie

I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.

You seem to not only be very much informed and suspiciously passionate. Since you didn't respond to my last comment I'll repost it and assume you just missed it.

I put it here for you reading pleasure and to save you the trouble of having to look it up.

Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR

Curious how never having met or communicated with anyone in the company, and having no connection to Mills, no investment you have seen that which no one else has and have beheld the magic hydrino compound. I am assuming this is the same Dr Randell Mills (the Harvard trained physician) who guards his work and sends cease and desist letters to anyone trying to validate his work yet allows those with no connections to the company or anyone in it to see the most closely guarded magic.

The context are from your quote above and another you made. I did do a little snipping to make clear the parts I was referring to.

Originally Posted by markie

I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.

Originally Posted by markie

Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power. No commercial device yet but I'm patient.

For someone you've never communicated with or had contact with the company you seem to have a lot of what otherwise would seem to be privileged information from a secretive and guarded man.

On the contrary, Mills is very open about his work. This is acknowledged by all kinds of people in (say) the LENR community. I know only as much as anyone else paying attention to what Mills has revealed publicly over the last two decades.

Quote:

You seem to not only be very much informed and suspiciously passionate. Since you didn't respond to my last comment I'll repost it and assume you just missed it.

I didn't miss it. I decided to leave it alone as I do many other posts. I get to be choosy. But since you persist...

Quote:

I put it here for you reading pleasure and to save you the trouble of having to look it up.

How thoughtful. Trouble is, when I reply, anything in quotes disappears. A select few here know how to embed layers of quotes but not me. So here is a hatchet copy and paste:

Originally Posted by MEequalsIxR View Post
Curious how never having met or communicated with anyone in the company, and having no connection to Mills, no investment you have seen that which no one else has and have beheld the magic hydrino compound. I am assuming this is the same Dr Randell Mills (the Harvard trained physician) who guards his work and sends cease and desist letters to anyone trying to validate his work yet allows those with no connections to the company or anyone in it to see the most closely guarded magic.

This is wrong. Mills welcomes validators and he welcomes replicators, as long as they are from reputable labs or institutions and do it in a way Mills approves.

Quote:

The context are from your quote above and another you made. I did do a little snipping to make clear the parts I was referring to.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
I've never met the man nor communicated privately with him or anyone in his company.

Originally Posted by markie View Post
Over the years I've seen hydrino compound and I've seen apparatuses that produced power. No commercial device yet but I'm patient.

Around 2000 - when I started following BLP - there were pictures of the compounds circulating, there were journal papers and reports written about them, samples were sent to various labs, and there was the usual validation work done at BLP by outside parties. Also, I've seen pictures of validated devices such as the CIHT cell which produced electricity directly with more power out than in.

Bottom line is that I believe these things as presented, and the integrity and competence of the individuals involved, and skeptics here don't.

Quote:

On a more friendly note, hows the weather at the beach?

All the snow shovelling I've been doing over the last month has been a beach. Thanks for asking.

Then Mills deludingly applies the Stefan-Boltzmann law for a black body to stars and galaxies which are not black bodies ! Generally stars are roughly black bodies but add stars with different temperatures together and you get very much not a black body spectrum.

You read but do not comprehend. You know what a Black Body Box is. Light goes into the box through a hole, gets bounced around inside the box, and is ultimately reemitted out through the hole as light of a certain frequency. The hole is a blackbody emitter.

Similarly, stars and such give off light ; the light enters into the black body box which is the universe, where it is absorbed and bounced around for eons. Ultimately at the end of the universe cycle, at maximum expansion, the universe is diffuse, blackbody light energy. It is this light - from a previous universe cycle - which we perceive as the CMBR. This is what Mills is saying as I understand it.

You read but do not comprehend. You know what a Black Body Box is. Light goes into the box through a hole, gets bounced around inside the box, and is ultimately reemitted out through the hole as light of a certain frequency. The hole is a blackbody emitter.

Similarly, stars and such give off light ; the light enters into the black body box which is the universe, where it is absorbed and bounced around for eons. Ultimately at the end of the universe cycle, at maximum expansion, the universe is diffuse, blackbody light energy. It is this light - from a previous universe cycle - which we perceive as the CMBR. This is what Mills is saying as I understand it.

Hmmm ... so, although you don’t say it in so many words, RC is right ... no doubt how cleverly you try to spin it, what Mills wrote is nonsense. Got it.

But I will follow markie's lead: Mills has his own personal, insane delusion that massive objects such as stars cause expansion of spacetime by conversion of mass to energy.
Insanely deluded because E=mc2 tells us that the energy is still equivalent to the mass and thus spacetime has not changed.

That E = mc^2 does not infer that spacetime has changed or not changed. For your benefit : In Mills' GUTCP spacetime is preserved but it expands and contracts upon matter to energy conversion and visa versa.

Quote:

Insanely deluded because the Earth has been in orbit around the Sun for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Sun has been in orbit in the Galaxy for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Milky Way has been in the Local Group for billions of years (13?)while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because all Mills has is own personal fantasy with no physics or math or empirical evidence.

The other half of this bit of Mills stupidity is the cosmology teaches that the expansion of the universe does not apply to gravitationally bound objects such people, planets, stars and galaxies.

Come now. Present cosmology does indeed teach that space *everywhere* is expanding. Dark energy is supposed to be uniform across space (and is created out of the blue as space is created). It's just that in gravitationally bound systems the curvature of space supposedly compensates for space expansion.

Idiocy about black bodies and delusions from markie.
It is really simple to understand.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to black bodies

Stars are only roughly black bodies with various temperatures.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law should not be applied to a single star because stars are not a black bodies.
Mills real stupidity is applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to all stars because they do not have 1 temperature !
It does not take much brain power to know that many different Stefan-Boltzmann curves are not a single Stefan-Boltzmann curve. Especially when stars have temperatures of thousands of degrees with a range of thousands of degrees and Mills wants a curve for a temperature of 2.72548 ± 0.00057 K!

ETA: One use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law is to get the effective temperature of a star, i.e. if the star was a black body then its luminosity gives an effective temperature. Thus the Sun has an effective temperature of 5778 K where the "effective" is often dropped.

When we add the stars at various temperatures together and other radiation, galaxies are definitely not black bodies.

A light enters "into the black body box which is the universe" delusion. The universe has no outside.

That E = mc^2 does not infer that spacetime has changed or not changed. ...

Idiocy about E = mc^2 and parroting Mills delusions.
What E = mc^2 says is that the source of the curvature of spacetime in sane science (GR) stays the same when stellar fusion converts mass to energy.

Around 2000 - when I started following BLP - there were pictures of the compounds circulating, there were journal papers and reports written about them, samples were sent to various labs, and there was the usual validation work done at BLP by outside parties.

Show me, or you are just making this **** up out of thin air.

All I ever saw was Mills promise he would do all that, but not one piece of that welding slag ever turned up a single hydrino.

Should be trivially easy to prove me wrong. So cut the crap and Show Me

This is not hard Markie. What labs? What did the lab reports say? Come on man. Don't be a chump here.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Some "space *everywhere* is expanding" ignorance about present cosmology

Originally Posted by markie

Present cosmology does indeed teach that space *everywhere* is expanding.

Some "space *everywhere* is expanding" ignorance about present cosmology.

Cosmology teaches that spacetime is expanding but the effects do not apply to gravitationally bound objects such people, planets, stars and galaxies. We are not expanding measurably. The Earth is not expanding measurably. The Sun is not expanding measurably. The Solar System is not expanding measurably (1 part in a septillion over its lifetime). The Milky Way is not expanding measurably. The Local Groups even has blue shifted galaxies!Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology : Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?

Nothing to do with my main point:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

But I will follow markie's lead: Mills has his own personal, insane delusion that massive objects such as stars cause expansion of spacetime by conversion of mass to energy.
Insanely deluded because E=mc2 tells us that the energy is still equivalent to the mass and thus spacetime has not changed
Insanely deluded because the Earth has been in orbit around the Sun for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Sun has been in orbit in the Galaxy for 4.6 billion years while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because the Milky Way has been in the Local Group for billions of years (13?)while Mills expansion has been happening.
Insanely deluded because all Mills has is own personal fantasy with no physics or math or empirical evidence.

Present cosmology does indeed teach that space *everywhere* is expanding. Dark energy is supposed to be uniform across space (and is created out of the blue as space is created).

Ignorance about cosmology where the expansion of the universe is not caused just by dark energy. It is caused by all of the mass and energy in the universe - baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is whatever is causing the acceleration of the expansion.

This question is best answered in the coordinate system where the galaxies change their positions. The galaxies are receding from us because they started out receding from us, and the force of gravity just causes an acceleration that causes them to slow down, or speed up in the case of an accelerating expansion. Planets are going around the Sun in fixed size orbits because they are bound to the Sun. Everything is just moving under the influence of Newton's laws (with very slight modifications due to relativity). [Illustration] For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.

Elemental analysis was performed by Galbraith Laboratories, Inc., Knoxville, TN. Potassium was determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma using an ICP Optima 3000.

A series of XPS analyses were made on crystalline and polymeric samples by the Zettlemoyer Center for Surface Studies, Sinclair Laboratory, Lehigh University.

Samples were sent to the Evans East company for TOFSIMS analysis. The powder samples were sprinkled onto the surface of double-sided adhesive tapes. The instrument was a Physical Electronics, PHI-Evans TFS-2000.

Samples were also sent to Xerox Corporation for TOFSIMS analysis.

Samples were sent to Ricerca, Inc., Painesville, Ohio for LC/MS analysis. The instrument was a PE Sciex API 365 LC/MS/MS System.

Samples were sent to Perkin-Elmer Biosystems (Framingham, MA) for ESITOFMS analysis. The data was obtained on a Mariner ESI TOF system fitted with a standard electrospray interface.

Samples were sent to South West Research Institute for SPMSMS analysis. The instrument was a Micromass AutoSpec Ultima trifocusing EBE geometry high resolution sector-field mass spectrometer.

A series of XPS analyses were made on the crystalline samples using a Scienta 300 XPS Spectrometer. The fixed analyzer transmission mode and the sweep acquisition mode were used.

'77 MAS NMR was performed on the crystalline samples. The data were obtained on a custom built spectrometer operating with a Nicolet 1280 computer

Samples were transferred to an infrared transmitting substrate and analyzed by FTIR spectroscopy using a Nicolet Magna 550 FTIR Spectrometer with a NicPlan FTIR microscope.

You'll have to download the pdf to see the figures listed. No pics of the compounds however. And of course there have been many more labs involved in analyzing hydrino compounds such as Spectral Data Services, China Lake lab in California, Chalk River Lab in Canada, Naval Weapons Lab in Maryland, etc.

And of course there have been many more labs involved in analyzing hydrino compounds such as Spectral Data Services, China Lake lab in California, Chalk River Lab in Canada, Naval Weapons Lab in Maryland, etc.

Cite the papers, press releases, or whatever where those labs confirmed that they confirmed hydrinos.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

If you abandon the idea of a unicorn being a rhinoceros or translation error and instead insist upon something closer to artistic representations of unicorns in Greek mythology you get some tenuous, well, we'll call it "evidence:"

There are university processors in all camps. The simple fact is being a "university professor" doesn't really convey much in the way of weight. I've met some university professors who astound me with their ability to tie their shoes without accidentally throttling themselves.

Amusingly, there's far more evidence for the existence of unicorns than there is for any of the ideas Mills has proposed.

On a side not markie, you might want to shy away from citing anything by Peter Mark Jansson. As this Reddit posts points out, he was a BLP contractor for most his tests, used materials provided BY BLP and the test he did for NASA didn't even produce enough thrust for them to MEASURE it with the equipment they were using!

BTW I don't know why markie is saying he has no pictures of hydrino compounds. BLP's 1st quarter update that I've cited many times claims to have pictures of stuff that looks like cotton candy that are claimed to be hydrino compounds.

__________________REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

For Holmes, the patent was key to convincing investors, partners, and patients that her massive, years-long fraud (a company called "Theranos" bilked investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars) was legit; the USPTO helped her out by trumpeting the importance of patents to "inventors" like Holmes, comparing her to Benjamin Franklin in their public communications.

__________________Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

BTW I don't know why markie is saying he has no pictures of hydrino compounds. BLP's 1st quarter update that I've cited many times claims to have pictures of stuff that looks like cotton candy that are claimed to be hydrino compounds.

Clearly I was meaning there are no pictures of the crystals in the patent application I was referencing. I have a picture of the crystals on my hard drive and no doubt there are others circulating out there. If you can't find one, yeah you can always gaze upon the mysterious web compound on BLP's website.

On the contrary, Mills is very open about his work. This is acknowledged by all kinds of people in (say) the LENR community. I know only as much as anyone else paying attention to what Mills has revealed publicly over the last two decades.

Have no idea what LENR is or what the community represents.

So where can I can see these things?

Originally Posted by markie

How thoughtful. Trouble is, when I reply, anything in quotes disappears.

It is a little harder to do that here than some forums. I don't know a shortcut I just copied them from the original posts one by one.

Originally Posted by markie

This is wrong. Mills welcomes validators and he welcomes replicators, as long as they are from reputable labs or institutions and do it in a way Mills approves.

And yet upost there is an incident cited where a believer was given a cease and desist for trying to duplicate the results.

Originally Posted by markie

Around 2000 - when I started following BLP - there were pictures of the compounds circulating, there were journal papers and reports written about them, samples were sent to various labs, and there was the usual validation work done at BLP by outside parties. Also, I've seen pictures of validated devices such as the CIHT cell which produced electricity directly with more power out than in.

Pictures can't be manipulated at all and I should accept that as proof? Let me jump in my car (pictured below) and I'll be right over to see them.

Originally Posted by markie

Bottom line is that I believe these things as presented, and the integrity and competence of the individuals involved, and skeptics here don't.

I don't know anyone at BLP and have no particular reason to believe them. Going in I had no particular reason to disbelieve them either but looking at what has been done and the way things have played out reality says hydrinos and associated compounds are not real.

Because Mills is an outsider to physics does not mean he is not qualified to discover new things or to develop new theories. But it doesn't mean anyone with a theory is correct either. Einstein has been tested in round numbers for 100 years. His work has been verified as much as anyone and yet it is my opinion (as a layman) he is not the final word and the same way he refined and advanced Newtons work someone else (or more likely a group of someone elses) will refine and advance his work. And that work and the work after. Newton stood for over 200 years. I hope Einstein doesn't last that long - I would like to see what comes next and I'm not getting any younger.

I have to admit I was being glib in my comment about the weather at the beach, for which I apologize.

Clearly I was meaning there are no pictures of the crystals in the patent application I was referencing. I have a picture of the crystals on my hard drive and no doubt there are others circulating out there. If you can't find one, yeah you can always gaze upon the mysterious web compound on BLP's website.

And I have a unicorn in my backyard. If you do not have any, you could always google after one. - Convincing isn't it? Neither is your claim I am afraid.

For example: Where does Mills' take his deluded fantasy of spacetime expanding due to fusion in stars and derive Hubble's law?

That was first done for real cosmology in 1927 and is textbook cosmology learned by maybe millions of students since then.

A minor point: Spacetime expansion is not significant for scales much larger than galaxies as in the link I gave you ("the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster").

Talking of Hubble's law:Page 1495: Mills does not understand that his "calculated Hubble constant" is wrong !
The measured Hubble constant before 2016 was 67.74±0.46 (Planck) or 74.4±3.0 (Cosmicflows-2). The current values have smaller errors. That the cosmological and observational values do not agree suggests that one is wrong.

Clearly I was meaning there are no pictures of the crystals in the patent application I was referencing. I have a picture of the crystals on my hard drive and no doubt there are others circulating out there. If you can't find one, yeah you can always gaze upon the mysterious web compound on BLP's website.

You missed the point Markie. We already know Mills claims these various things contain Hydrinos. The request was for you to show what these independent labs claim the material to be, not what Mills claims it to be.

Where are independent labs reports confirming hydrinos in any kind of sample? That's what you need to show. Just repeating Mills claims doesn't verify or confirm anything.

__________________Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working﻿ with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill MollisonBiome Carbon Cycle Management

Page 1496: An abysmally ignorant calculation from 400 billion galaxies each containing 400 billion stars.
In the real world, the universe does not have 400 billion galaxies. We can only estimate the number of galaxies in the observable universe. We do not now how far the universe extends beyond the observable universe. Itt is plausible that the universe is 250 to 10^23 to even bigger times bigger and being infinite is not ruled out. The result is that no one can say how many galaxies there are in the universe.

400 billion galaxies is dubious even for the observable universe. The estimate usually used before 2016 was 200 billion galaxies. The current estimate is up to 2 trillion galaxies.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.